What is this DEI thing we love/hate?

Did DEI actually cause the recent crash of a plane and helicopter over the Potomac? No. Then why can President Trump score political points by claiming that DEI is at the root of such events? Do people believe him?

My friends and I do not believe him, but Trump gets away with such rhetoric because it’s true that DEI programs were out of control at all levels of government and in many corporations and non-profit organizations. How do I know this? I’ve had the privilege of meeting people whose careers were side-tracked because of DEI assumptions. I’ve had direct experience participating in DEI training with a non-profit that shocked me and brought me to my senses.

The notion of cultural appropriation somehow got tangled up with DEI jargon and one result was a decision that a white woman could not use a hip-hop video she produced to instruct college freshmen on how to use the campus library services. Bonkers. An entrepreneur was shut down for serving Asian noodles while white. Bonkers.

During the training I participated in, I learned that as a white person, I must let a person of color speak until she has said all that she wants to say. Why is that bad, you should ask. Of course it’s rude to interrupt people in a meeting. Let the person finish, for heaven’s sake. But what if the person who chairs the meeting is white? Can she interrupt the person of color in order to keep the meeting on track or enable others to speak? No, she cannot. I’m not sure what should happen if more than one person of color is present as we only ever had one in my training.

I also learned that Robin D’Angelo and Ibram X Kendi are gods. Thou shalt not challenge D’Angelos’s assertion that white people are fragile if they express discomfort with any of the new rules of the road such as let the POC talk until she has exhausted herself. Kendi asserts that any and all gaps in participation, income, achievement, etc. are evidence of racism, end of discussion. If Asians achieve higher scores than whites, it’s because they are white-adjacent, not because their families promote reading, writing, and arithmetic at home.

The fallout from this way of thinking are policies that work to the detriment of all. If schools find that fewer black and brown kids are taking advanced math classes, the solution is not to provide extra support to those are want to learn math yet struggle with it. The solution is to eliminate advanced math classes so that there is no visible disparity. If black students have lower scores on the tests that guide college entrance policies, just eliminate the tests. Base college acceptance on essays in which applicants can attest to their struggles with systemic racism and their efforts to achieve despite these barriers.

Policing, of course, has been the focus of DEI thinking for many years. We all know that police kill black men in disproportionate numbers and that this is a result of racism. Except that this bit of common knowledge is not true. If you are a black professor with actual evidence that this is not true, and if you publish this information, your funding will be cut, your programs suspended, and your ability to teach will be restricted. The good news is that you will survive this punishment and that the administrator who inflicted these punishments will herself be demoted.

People who are policing the police focus on statistics such as the number of calls to certain neighborhoods and the number of interactions with police tallied by race. A “good government” organization will accuse police of racism if data show that police are called to neighborhoods with more people of color more often than to predominately white neighborhoods. That organization will adopt a policy calling for elimination of disproportional policing in which POC neighborhoods are surveilled more than others. A citizen who asserts that police might be called to some neighborhoods more than others because more crime occurs in those neighborhoods will be shut down.

People my age remember when affirmative action was necessary. It began during an era when discrimination on the basis of race was common and visible. The good old boys controlled hiring in companies, departments, and organizations large and small. I got my first job because my dad knew a guy who was able to pull my application out of a stack of applications and tell someone to hire me. The original plan of affirmative action was to eliminate actions such as that and to solicit applications from many more sources on the assumption that qualified applicants of all colors were out there, We just needed to find them, encourage them to apply for jobs they were qualified for, and hire more of them.

In recent years, however, as disparities have persisted in many fields, HR departments began to tighten the scews and insist on hiring fewer white men and more people of color even if that meant lowering standards. I totally get that “standards” are not equally relevant to the task at hand. It’s not necessarily true that a person with a straight A record is the best person for a certain job. Yes, people skills, motivation, and willingness to try a new approach might be more valuable to a company than an academic record. I get that. I get that I should not have had the privilege of getting my application pulled from a stack of equally qualified applicants just because my dad knew a guy. I really do want employment to be based on fair standards and unbiased screening.

But. But young white males cannot be put at the bottom of the pile because they are white and male. Where will that get us? And: white women should be able to participate in a group that is mostly white women. Yes. DEI has gone too far. It absolutely needs to change. Perhaps it needs to be trashed completely. Can agencies and companies and organizations hire and promote people responsibly without the DEI police? I like to think so. I wish DEI programs had not bought into Kendi’s assertion that all disparities are due to racism. (Does anyone really believe that professional sports teams should be racially balanced? Good grief.)

The backlash against DEI is due, in my humble opinion, to the irrational zealotry of recent years. Does that mean that blind air traffic controllers are responsible for the recent crash? No. But people who are legally blind often have some sight and can do normal things with the right technology. We should not assume they can’t do a certain job. If they apply, interview them. Find out what supports they need. Do the same with anyone with a disability. Find out what they can do. Talk to them! Give them a chance.

I wish Trump were not blaming DEI for everything. He’s just a jerk when behaves this way. I hate that crowds of his supporters cheer him on. And yet: DEI programs absolutely need to change.

Hope and Fears as I Cast My Ballot

I’ll be voting a split ticket today, some Rs, some Ds. Historically, I’ve voted straight tickets, but this year I just can’t. I’ll be voting for Harris/Walz on the national scene, but for Dave Reichert for governor of WA and probably for the Republican for attorney general. Reichert is the most normal, reasonable Republican to make it to the general election ballot in years, and I am anxious for a change in Olympia. 

My concerns at the state level are with a too-soft approach to crime and a too-woke approach to education. Not to worry, lefty friends, there is no chance that Reichert will win. I’ll continue to be a lonely centrist in a far left state come January.

The national election is too close to call as of today, October 22, 2024. I am anxious about it. My curious streak wants to see what would happen if Trump were to win. Would our fears be realized? Would the world as we know it vanish before our eyes? I’m not willing to risk it, so I’ll be voting for Harris, but I’m anxious about the future even if she wins. 

I have a wild set of hopes and fears if Harris takes the oath in January. Yes, I’d love to see a capable woman become president! And Harris is good enough for me. The long row of white men who have preceded her in the office have not necessarily been the best men in the country at their time. They’ve succeeded in winning for a variety of reasons. Most of them grew in competence while in office. (I can’t imagine that anyone is ready to assume the job of leader of the free world on Day 1.) Harris will be a fast learner, and her values and goals are fine with me…

…With a couple of concerns: Just how woke is she? Can she support the rights of trans adults while accepting the need to temper the demands of the most extreme trans activists with regard to children? Can she temper the enthusiasm of public schools to denigrate both our history and the legitimate accomplishments of western culture? Can she address concerns about the criminal justice system the way she did in her book, “Smart on Crime,” rather than follow the radicals who ruled in 2020? 

On the international scene, I have hopes that Harris will be more supportive of Ukraine than Biden has been, and by that I mean I hope she will support the goal of winning in Ukraine, not just fighting until everyone is exhausted.Trump would just give the Donbas and Crimea to Putin and wash his hands of it all. At least, if she wins, we won’t be pulling the rug out from under Ukraine immediately. 

As for Israel, I don’t have confidence in either Trump or Harris. No one knows what Trump would do. He has insisted that October 7 would not have happened if he’d been in office, Ukraine would not have been invaded, no bad things at all. BS, in my mind. I don’t think his craziness, which he now cultivates as an asset, will prevent all bad things. So what would he actually do for the Middle East? I’m confident that even he has no idea.

What about Harris? More restraints on Israel? Fewer restraints? Could she find moderate Muslim partners to rebuild Gaza? Two States for Two Peoples! Yada, yada, yada. Create a Palestinian state without a complete change of heart by Palestinian leaders willing to accept Israel vocally, in public, risking assassination by doing so – that would mean two states armed sufficiently to maintain order, but also armed for self defense. Personally, I think it will take at least a generation of calm, perhaps longer, before Israel would again consider two equal states. But a Palestinian “starter state?” We should at least talk about it.

People can change. I’ve seen it. My father’s family was just fine with Jim Crow. Separate drinking fountains? Fine with them. Separate schools, of course. Separate public accommodations, sure. And then? They let it go. They didn’t all accept the equality of black and white, but they let go of Jim Crow, and many black Americans have taken advantage of opportunities afforded to them. Remember, though, that we were not rushing to bomb shelters, within our homes, when rockets were fired at us by the victims of Jim Crow. No one had armed them hoping to obliterate us. Rather, we had a leader who spoke courageously of judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Palestinians who might have had the potential to become voices for peaceful coexistence have been systematically “taken out” by Hamas and others. Will any surface from the rubble of Gaza? I trust Harris much more than Trump to find them if they are there and work with them. 

Hopes and fears. I have some hopes and many fears as I cast my ballot this year. How about you?

MLK, BLM, Glenn Loury, Donald Trump

Flawed human beings can do good. 

This morning, I read a moving article by Angel Eduardo on the FAIR website. It made the case that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a saint, but he was the right man at the right time to bring our attention to injustices that we needed to address. King was a powerful orator who made masterful use of non-violent tactics to bring attention to Jim Crow laws in the south and Jim Crow sentiments in the north. Yet he wouldn’t pass muster today with people who expect leaders of both the past and present to have no earthly flaws. 

BLM employs powerful rhetoric and surely has a winning slogan, “Black Lives Matter.” Yet it clamors for justice for individuals who have somehow gotten the message that only “the system” is wrong, that their own actions cannot be scrutinized, that no one needs to obey a cop, that admitting mistakes will fail the cause. Rosa Parks was primed for her role in the fight against racism. A less sympathetic woman was passed over. Yes, the system was unfair to both, but we benefitted from the decision to use Rosa Parks to advance the cause. When individuals can readily be discredited, advancing the cause is more difficult. Knowing this, MLK hid his flaws. And he made sure to focus on people who were undeserving of the ill treatment they received.

Glenn Loury: Flawed. Intelligent. Honest about his struggles. And barely getting the attention he deserves. I look forward to the release of his memoir this spring, Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative. Glenn posts on Substack, and every other week, he and John McWhorter do a podcast on race issues in which they speak heresy and challenge each other to clarify and justify their thinking. Thomas Sowell might be more famous, but Loury is absolutely the real deal in terms of a flawed person who has overcome many struggles (drugs and infidelity in addition to poverty) accomplished a great deal, and is now sharing his insights and wisdom. Admitting his flaws elevates Loury’s message that individual responsibility is still a vital element in individual achievement.

And then there’s Donald Trump. One thing I learned when I began reaching out to Trump voters is that his supporters are able to overlook his flaws because they like his message. Or they like some of his policies. Or they like the way he stands up to elites. This lesson is why I think it’s vital that we not vilify his supporters if we feel that Trump is dangerous or is too flawed to be President. If someone tells me that MLK was a womanizer, I’m not going to let that fact drown out his important message. 

No. I do not think Trump is of the same stature as Martin Luther King, Jr. No, I do not equate Trump and King in any way. I’m not even sure that Trump has a message for America. To me, he’s all about Trump, and he’s latched onto victim status in a way that true victims can only watch with amazement.

Here, I am just addressing the fact that people who support Trump are able to overlook his character flaws, so we might do better to address issues rather than character flaws when discussing Trump. There are some, you know: No plan for health care; no follow-through on infrastructure; no understanding of America’s role in global trade and global affairs; appointment of cronies to important agencies; insistence on gutting government rather than right-sizing it. 

And lest you think you’re right about everything, here’s a nifty (short) commercial that challenges that idea. From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression: FIRE commercial

Unlearning Fear

Tyre Nichols. Philando Castile. Two men, just trying to comply with police instructions, end up dead for no good reason. How do we put an end to this disgrace?

Some deaths at the hands of police are just wrong. Some deaths at the hands of police seem unnecessary, but investigations reveal reasons for police use of deadly force. Sometimes the police are clearly the good guys, and the bad guys are truly out of control, dangerous to the public, and need to be stopped. When any police shooting is caught on video, the only thing we know is that we don’t know the whole story.

Here are a few things we do know: people, liberals especially, vastly overestimate all killings by police and especially the killings of black men.* Black Lives Matter leaders have pushed the narrative of out of control police departments targeting black men. This narrative only increases fear of police to the point that more men resist and/or flee which only increases the risk that force, perhaps deadly force, will be used on them. 

The prevailing narrative ramps up fear to what might be an irrational level, but the deaths of Nichols and Castile illustrate that some amount of fear is rational. Many police departments are trying to train and retrain officers to interact in ways that reduce the violent and intimidating tactics we associate with anyone being arrested. The goal is for everyone to come out alive at the end. Ideally, black men would know that this is happening, understand that the goal is for everyone to chill, cooperate with police, and end up alive, either released when appropriate or working their way through a justice system that is fair to all. 

The recent death of Tyre Nichols helped me understand why fear is still rational if you’re stopped by police. The question is when is it rational to let go of rational fear, that is fear based on reasonable evidence that police just might kill you? 

We, as humans, are not that good at judging risk, yet we do it all day every day. What’s truly challenging is recalibrating our level of fear when the calculations change. Yet, we can do this. Even I, with my long-standing fear of flying, flew on four airplanes in 2022 without any white knuckles. Somehow, the safety record for flying became so compelling that I had to dial back my fear, especially when it was obvious that the only way I could get where I wanted to go was to fly. Fortunately, no recent disasters occurred that would have interfered with my new-found confidence.

This is not the case however, when it comes to interactions between police and the public, especially the black and brown public. I can only imagine the emotions that ran through police departments that were making a serious effort to alter the tone of interactions with suspects in non-violent situations. Decent cops must surely have been devastated to see the videos of the beating of Tyre Nichols. Decent black men may surely have thought that things are never going to change. 

Fear can absolutely be rational. It can also be irrational. One of the challenges young women face is learning to calibrate their level of fear to the social situations they encounter as they enter the world outside their home. (I’m skipping the fear some children learn at home for now.) We’ve all heard about “the talk” that black mothers give to their sons in hopes that they will emerge unscathed from encounters with police. Calibrate your fear. Your best bet to emerge alive is to follow instructions.

And then, Tyre Nichols. Was Nicholas an exception? Yes. But how much of an exception? Were other examples simply not filmed for our viewing? How many examples? How long will it take for young black men to begin to let go of rational fear? If deaths as senseless as those of Castile or Nicholas happen only once a year, or once every two years, or five years, it will be enough to sustain the fear that lingers. Police must intervene to stop their peers who overreact. Young black men could benefit from recalibrating their fear of police, knowing that change is happening. Dialing back the violence and the rhetoric could occur at the same time from both sides. No, the burden shouldn’t be on young black men to unlearn their fear. But the reality is that their chances of sustaining permanent injuries or being killed are low enough to take a chance on compliance. I get why everyone might disagree with me, but I hope both sides will give peace a chance. 

* Sources:

Washington Post Data Base

Roland Fryer studies of use of force

Public estimates of police use of force